Viacom vs. YouTube battle heats up on official blogs
Here are the key points each side has made so far, condensed for your convenience:
YouTube says ...
Viacom not only uploaded its own content to YouTube, but it hired 18 different marketing agencies to take on the task. Once the content was up, Viacom seemingly couldn't tell the difference between independent infringers and the people it hired. In many cases, Viacom even called YouTube and asked to have infringing content reinstated. There are also some juicy accusations that Viacom employees uploaded videos from Kinko's, so they'd be harder to trace.
YouTube also says that the current lawsuit is sour grapes on Viacom's part, after it tried and failed to buy YouTube years ago.
Viacom says ...
"YouTube was intentionally built on infringement and there are countless internal YouTube communications demonstrating that YouTube's founders and its employees intended to profit from that infringement."
According to Viacom, YouTube intentionally "steals" videos, because copyrighted content brings in tons of traffic and profit. Viacom accuses Google of holding its videos for ransom to coerce Viacom into licensing the videos to YouTube on the cheap.
The key point of Viacom's case is that YouTube was aware of "rampant" infringement, and had the means to stop it, but chose not to.
Who's right? That's for the courts to decide, but you can still debate it in the comments. Whose side are you on, Download Squad readers?